Cunobelin wrote: pjclinch wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:What I am assuming is that if there are two similar head injuries, cause by similar impacts there is no sensible or coherent reason why one should be prevented and the victim castigated for contributing to their own misfortune, but the other is not.
It is the reason I like the Thudguard and introduced these to helmet debates some years ago.
And that's entirely reasonable and worth bringing up (and I often do). But it's not the answer to "can these things do any good?"
.... but it is
There are those who get excited about (anecdotally) a few lives each year being saved by their helmets.... imagine their enthusiasm when we get hundreds or even thousands more pedestrians making the same claims.
Being able to berate pedestrian for not wearing them... it would be almost Utopian for some
All we need to does expand presence to helmet research to the truly vulnerable groups, and prove to the same level
Again, you're extrapolating a different question from the one that's being asked. The question is "can these things do any good?" but the question you're implying is more like "can these things save lives?"
Gardening gloves probably don't save significant numbers of lives (and gardening is more dangerous than cycling by some measures), but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to wear them for some of the spikier gardening jobs.
We are in furious agreement about the absurdity of promoting helmets to save lives for cyclists but not for e.g. car occupants, but that's a different issue to cycle helmets being any use at all
. They were developed as better hairnets, not life savers. It would be useful to get that message across to give some perspective as to what to expect.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...